MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2901051586 · doi:10.7759/cureus.3624

Do Electrocardiogram Rhythm Findings Predict Cardiac Activity During a Cardiac Arrest? A Study from Sonography in Cardiac Arrest and Hypotension in the Emergency Department (SHoC-ED)

2018· article· en· W2901051586 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Atkinson, Andrew W Keyes, Kathleen O’Donnell, N. Beckett, Ankona Banerjee, Jacqueline Fraser, David Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsHorizon Health NetworkSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsystoleMedicinePulseless electrical activityAdvanced cardiac life supportEmergency departmentCardiopulmonary resuscitationResuscitationCardiologyInternal medicineAnesthesiaOdds ratio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Electrocardiographic (ECG) rhythms are used during advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) to guide resuscitation management. Survival to hospital discharge has been reported to be better for patients with pulseless electrical activity (PEA) than asystole in out-of-hospital arrests. Despite this, treatment for these two (non-shockable) rhythms is combined in ACLS guidelines. This study examines if the recorded cardiac rhythm of asystole or PEA during ACLS accurately predicts mechanical cardiac activity as determined by point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS). Methods A database review was completed for patients (> 19 years without a do not resuscitate (DNR) order) who presented to a tertiary emergency department in PEA or asystolic cardiac arrest between 2010 and 2014. Patients were separated into two groups: those with electrical cardiac activity (PEA) and those without (asystole). We compared ECG rhythm and PoCUS-documented cardiac activity results (both initial and any) for each case. Results A total of 186 patients met the study criteria. The 46 patients with PEA on ECG were more likely to have cardiac activity than the 140 patients with asystole (odds ratio 7.22 (95% confidence intervals 2.79-18.7) for activity on initial PoCUS; odds ratio 5.45 (2.49-12.0) for activity on any PoCUS during arrest). ECG alone was poorly sensitive for initial cardiac activity (63.64%; 40.66% to 82.80%) and any cardiac activity (54.29%; 36.65% to 71.17%), with specificity marginally better at 80.49% (73.59% to 86.25%) for initial and 82.12% (75.06% to 87.87%) for any activity. Conclusion Our results suggest that ECG rhythm alone is not an accurate predictor of cardiac activity. This supports the use of PoCUS during cardiac arrest, in addition to ECG, to identify patients with ongoing mechanical cardiac activity and to help determine appropriate treatment for this group.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→